Sync Reflections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that it updates the knowledge base with approved reflections, which is a behavioral trait beyond the openWorldHint annotation. However, it does not detail idempotency, whether it overwrites existing data, or any prerequisites beyond having approved reflections.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though it could briefly mention usage context without significant bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose. However, it lacks edge-case details (e.g., behavior with no approved reflections) and does not leverage sibling relationships for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter (botId) is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameter, meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (synchronize/update), the resource (knowledge base), and the scope (all approved reflections). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like neuron_approve_reflection (which approves) and neuron_list_reflections (which lists).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (after reflections are approved) but does not explicitly state this or mention when not to use it. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.